Starship is ready for its 5th test flight, SpaceX says (photos)

[Enron Husk]

Because Starship isn't only going to other planets. It's also for "earth to earth" travel. It also needs to dock again on its return journey for resupply, and having it on chopsticks greatly reduces its turn-around time for re-use.

If you have any clue as to how things actually work, and spend just a few seconds thinking about it, you'll see that the idea of using rockets for "earth to earth" travel is stupid on the face of it. The issues of noise, the incredible inefficiency, and the inherently unsafe nature of rockets, and the ridiculous claims of fast turn-around of machinery that's been pushed to it's limits with every use are enough to put the whole concept in the dustbin.
Have you ever asked yourself why the techno-jesus who claims to want to save the world is proposing burning huge amounts of CO2 producing fuel to shuffle around the obscenely rich?

 

[Atlan0001]

If you have any clue as to how things actually work, and spend just a few seconds thinking about it, you'll see that the idea of using rockets for "earth to earth" travel is stupid on the face of it. The issues of noise, the incredible inefficiency, and the inherently unsafe nature of rockets, and the ridiculous claims of fast turn-around of machinery that's been pushed to it's limits with every use are enough to put the whole concept in the dustbin.
Have you ever asked yourself why the techno-jesus who claims to want to save the world is proposing burning huge amounts of CO2 producing fuel to shuffle around the obscenely rich?

Name a frontier opening that wasn't backed by the "obscenely rich" in one way, one form, or another! "Never have so many owed so much to so few!"

 

[Enron Husk]

Name a frontier opening that wasn't backed by the "obscenely rich" in one way, one form, or another! "Never have so many owed so much to so few!"

Your response does nothing but express your faith in your "betters". Trust in demagogues does nothing to address the fundamental failings of the concept of using rockets for terrestrial travel, a task that is not a new "frontier" and is already well in hand and will not be improved with rockets.
Quoting Churchill doesn't make Husk a hero.

 

[TheCoolBrit]

An autonomous drone that runs on solar power doesn't need food, water, or O2...

It's also entirely possible to send 12, 30, 100 Starships to Mars simultaneously for all supplies needed. There would also be regular shipments to-and-from Earth-Mars. If there are 27 Starships doing trips, you could have a resupply once per month.

Once a small base is constructed, it's entirely possible to harvest and/or generate the colony's own food, water, and O2. Heat and electricity would be provided by a small nuclear generator. Like the ISS, the base would be a series of modules created on Earth, not constructed on Mars.

With rocket tech available Mars for most of its orbit requires to much fuel to make the trip to Mars worthwhile, currently without nuclear power trips to and from Mars only has a 3-4 month Launch window just over every 2 Earth years. So it is important to grow food on Mars.

 

[Atlan0001]

Your response does nothing but express your faith in your "betters". Trust in demagogues does nothing to address the fundamental failings of the concept of using rockets for terrestrial travel, a task that is not a new "frontier" and is already well in hand and will not be improved with rockets.
Quoting Churchill doesn't make Husk a hero.

If you'll notice, which you obviously didn't, I didn't say a thing about rocket travel from one point of Earth to another point of Earth! Personally, I don't think it's a good idea, intercontinental travel-wise, that is.

And, guy, you sure have the wrong idea about who I consider my "betters!" I consider myself a major in the field and study of history, which is what I drew upon.

 

[TheCoolBrit]

If you have any clue as to how things actually work, and spend just a few seconds thinking about it, you'll see that the idea of using rockets for "earth to earth" travel is stupid on the face of it. The issues of noise, the incredible inefficiency, and the inherently unsafe nature of rockets, and the ridiculous claims of fast turn-around of machinery that's been pushed to it's limits with every use are enough to put the whole concept in the dustbin.
Have you ever asked yourself why the techno-jesus who claims to want to save the world is proposing burning huge amounts of CO2 producing fuel to shuffle around the obscenely rich?

The US Space Force is very keen to use a version of Starship for point to point transport.

 

[Atlan0001]

The US Space Force is very keen to use a version of Starship for point to point transport.

You may be getting orbital access orbital travel and return mixed up with intercontinental direct travel. Two far different 'place' things.

 

[Enron Husk]

If you'll notice, which you obviously didn't, I didn't say a thing about rocket travel from one point of Earth to another point of Earth! Personally, I don't think it's a good idea, intercontinental travel-wise, that is.

And, guy, you sure have the wrong idea about who I consider my "betters!" I consider myself a major in the field and study of history, which is what I drew upon.

Your reaction makes no sense to me, as your initial comment was in response to my take on the concept of rockets for point to point travel. But now your saying that that that same reaction wasn't about that because you didn't specify that in your comment? If that's so, then why make the comment in the first place?
Also, when I mentioned the "obscenely rich", I was quite obviously referring to the people Husk's dodgy scheme would be marketed to, and not the fraud himself, which makes your comment even more irrelevant to what I was rather clearly communicating.

 

[Philly]

If this one fails like the other 4 will they still clap and claim success?

How many Falcon 9's 1st stages, crashed before they figured it out? Seems like no one really cares about those early crashes anymore. Perfection can be the enemy of just getter done, fix what didn't work, and go for it again until it works.

 

[Atlan0001]

Your reaction makes no sense to me, as your initial comment was in response to my take on the concept of rockets for point to point travel. But now your saying that that that same reaction wasn't about that because you didn't specify that in your comment? If that's so, then why make the comment in the first place?
Also, when I mentioned the "obscenely rich", I was quite obviously referring to the people Husk's dodgy scheme would be marketed to, and not the fraud himself, which makes your comment even more irrelevant to what I was rather clearly communicating.

I know what you were communicating with "obscenely rich"! I addressed it! Isolated it and specifically addressed it!

 

[Philly]

I have a feeling an adjustment to the chop sticks will be needed. I think they will eventually be curved and with teeth to secure the pins into a more secure position. I can see those pins slipping and the whole rocket crashing after the catch, especially with fuel sloshing in the tanks.

 

[TheCoolBrit]

You may be getting orbital access orbital travel and return mixed up with intercontinental direct travel. Two far different 'place' things.

Maybe it is the US Military that are paying SpaceX to looking into developing point to point, but I know Space Force is involved to have a starship ready in a few hours to fly military equipment and maybe personnel to anywhere in the world.

 

[Enron Husk]

The US Space Force is very keen to use a version of Starship for point to point transport.

They can be as keen as they want, but that thing isn't going to do it for them. In case you haven't noticed, the most prominent feature on the whole endeavor has been a constant moving of the goalposts. It's no different from any project in which Enron interferes with the actual engineers and starts throwing his weight around. Oh, but he's not lying, he just being "aspirational". So say all of his simps.
I can see exactly where he gets his unoriginal ideas from, as I've read all of the classic science fiction from which he cribs them. The casual and naive mention of characters taking a rocket to this or that earthly destination is quite common in the genre in the time that preceded practical rocketry.

 

[TheCoolBrit]

Musk's Timelines yes, Yet normally scores the goal.
Not sure why so many are against SpaceX and all their amazingly talented engineers, that do what time and time others say is impossible.
No other private company has come close to what SpaceX has achieved towards all the great Sci-Fi books since Apollo.

 

[mcswell]

Are there chopstick catchers on the moon and mars? No there are not, so what is the point in doing something that can't be done off Earth?

Umm, let's see, that's a trick question, right? Ok, I'll answer anyway. So they can re-use the booster.

Just in case this isn't clear, the booster isn't supposed to land on the Moon or Mars, only the Starship, which is the top stage.

 

[mcswell]

Are there catch arms on the Moon and Mars or MUST the thing land without exploding?

Irrelevant. The booster is not supposed to land on the Moon or Mars, only Earth.

It's all actually moot unless someone figures out how to create food, water and Oxygen on the way to Mars.

Why? You carry enough of those supplies to get you to Mars and to last you for awhile there, and you recycle as much of the water and oxygen as possible so you don't have to carry as much as if you just vented it. Once you're on Mars, then you can resupply the water and oxygen (there's virtually no free oxygen, but plenty in chemical bondage just waiting to be freed).

 

[mcswell]

The booster was supposed to land itself, and it did then blew up, then they splashed it down in the ocean where it sunk and now by using chopsticks they are actually admitting that it cannot land. Also you can watch every minute of NASA footage and you will not see anyone in mission control laughing and clapping like the spacex control does to try to hide their complete failure after an explosion. Just think how are they going to bring heavy construction equipment to Mars? Where does the food and water come from? a pipeline from Earth perhaps. Perhaps in 200 years but not even then with solid/liquid rocket tech.

You are displaying your lack of understanding. Go read about those missions.

The difference between SpaceX's approach to new rockets and NASA's is that NASA thinks everything needs to work the first time; hence the multi-billion dollar Senate Launch System, aka Space Launch System (SLS); whereas SpaceX builds and tests rockets to destruction, because they build them cheaper.

As for food and water on Mars, you probably bring most of the food, at least until you have what you need to grow it on Mars. You bring water and recycle it, then get more on Mars. Or didn't you know that there's water on Mars?

 

[HobartStinsonian]

Are there chopstick catchers on the moon and mars? No there are not, so what is the point in doing something that can't be done off Earth?

More to the point there are no landing pads on moon or Mars. Set a large rocket on an unprepared surface and it may not stay vertical. Parking on sand is not advised. Liftoff from sand could be a disaster. They ought to build landing pads with robots first. But the accuracy of landing will not assure you of landing on the right spot. No GPS on moon or Mars for accurate navigation.

 

[Cariboudjan]

More to the point there are no landing pads on moon or Mars. Set a large rocket on an unprepared surface and it may not stay vertical. Parking on sand is not advised. Liftoff from sand could be a disaster. They ought to build landing pads with robots first. But the accuracy of landing will not assure you of landing on the right spot. No GPS on moon or Mars for accurate navigation.

Which is why they are already planning to have entirely different landing legs for the moon and for mars.'

What you're looking at now with Starship is just the prototype model. Its barebones and missing a lot of the features that the final model will have.

 

[Philly]

Are there chopstick catchers on the moon and mars? No there are not, so what is the point in doing something that can't be done off Earth?

The Chop sticks are only required for landing on Earth.

There will be a different version for landing on the Moon with Landing Legs. The Moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth. 60 tons of equipment on Earth is only 10 tons on the moon. So it will be much easier to land and take off from the Moon. Actually in theory it would be much easier to launch to other planets from the Moon, if we could eventually product enough fuel on the Moon.
Taking off from Earth we can only get about 2-3% of the total weight of the rocket into orbit. It gets worse going beyond LEO. Thus SX's design to refuel in orbit. This is a problem that Physics imposes on all rockets leaving Earth. The Chop Sticks is an attempt to eliminate the weight of the heavy landing legs. If SX can eliminate the landing legs it means being able to carry more useful payload to orbit. Most of the Starship flights are going to be fuel tanker missions.

Producing Methane fuel on Mars is possible but not impossible. A big key is finding easily accessible water.. Land an empty Starship,and start filling it up with Methane slowly. The cold temperatures make it easy to store.